Returning from Thanksgiving recess, the House leadership was determined
to press for a compromise . They did not want the Christmas checks of federal
employees to be short. Appropriations Committee Chairman Mahon called me
on November 29 to say he had decided to take the leadership completely
away from Flood who ardently opposed federal funds for abortion.

"He's just implacable on the subject," Mahon said, distraught.
''I'm retiring, but this kind of conduct is a disgrace to the House. We
all look asinine."

In secret negotiations with Senator Brooke, Mahon eventually produced
the compromise on December 7. The House voted twice within less than four
hours. The first time members rejected a Mahon proposal and voted 178 to
171 to stand by their strict position against all funding for abortions
except those needed to save the mother's life. Minutes later, Mahon, dejected
but determined, won speedy approval of new language from the Rules Committee
and rushed back to the House floor. The House reversed direction and adopted
the new and relaxed standard,181 to 167. Within two hours, with only three
of its hundred members on the floor, the Senate acceded to the House language
and sent the measure to President Carter for his signature. Under the measure,
no HEW funds could be used to perform abortions,

''except when the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus
were carried to term, or except for such medical procedures necessary for
the victims of rape or incest, when such rape or incest has been reported
promptly to a law enforcement agency or public health service; or except
in those instances where severe and long-lasting physical health damage
to the mother would result if the pregnancy were carried to term when so
determined by two physicians."

There was no way in which I could avoid becoming intimately involved
in making key decisions on the regulations. I decided personally to
read the entire 237 pages of self-serving and often confused congressional
debate and to study the ten different versions of this legislation that
were passed by either the House or the Senate.

To assure objectivity, to balance any unconscious bias I might harbor,
and to reduce my vulnerability to charges of personal prejudice, I assigned
the actual regulation writing to individuals who did not share my strong
views about abortion and, more importantly, who stood up for their own
views and did not hesitate to tell me when they thought I was wrong. The
bulk of the work was done by Richard Beattie, the deputy General Counsel
of HEW, and HEW attorneys June Zeitlin and David Becker, all of whom opposed
any restrictions on federal funding of abortions. I also asked the Attorney
General to review independently the regulations we drafted at HEW. Once
they were in effect, I would establish a detailed auditing system to assure
compliance and fulfill the congressional mandate

"to ensure that the provisions of this section are rigorously enforced."

Finally, I decided not to consult the President about the regulations.

Carter had enough controversial problems on his desk without adding
this one. My responsibility under the Constitution and under our system
of government was to reflect accurately the law passed by the Congress.
Neither Carter's personal views nor mine were of any relevance to my legal
duty to ascertain what Congress intended and write regulations that embodied
that intent.

In pursuit of my overall goal of cooling the temperature of the debate,
I wanted to issue the regulations more "promptly" than anyone
might expect. Not relying solely on my own reading of the congressional
debates, I asked the lawyers for a thorough analysis of the legislative
history. We then spent hours discussing and debating what the Congress
intended on several issues, frustrated by the conflicting statements in
the congressional record. We determined that for rape and incest victims,
the term ''medical procedures'' as used in this new law now clearly included
abortions; that a "public health service" had to be a governmental,
politically accountable institution; that short of fraud we should accept
physician's judgments as to what constituted